changing raceways
- Thread starter j.orlett
- Start date
- Status
paul
Senior Member
- Location
- Snohomish, WA
Re: changing raceways
I've never heard of such a thing. I've done it myself, as well as seen it done many times. The AHJ has also never said anything about it during cover inspections. If it is so, it's news to me.
Goodluck
I've never heard of such a thing. I've done it myself, as well as seen it done many times. The AHJ has also never said anything about it during cover inspections. If it is so, it's news to me.
Goodluck
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: changing raceways
2002 NEC 300.15 (F) a fitting used in lieu of a box shall be accessible
And also this if using an angle connector
350.42 FMC angle connectors shall not be used for concealed raceway installations
[ March 01, 2003, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
2002 NEC 300.15 (F) a fitting used in lieu of a box shall be accessible
And also this if using an angle connector
350.42 FMC angle connectors shall not be used for concealed raceway installations
[ March 01, 2003, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
paul
Senior Member
- Location
- Snohomish, WA
Re: changing raceways
So does a flex to EMT coupling fit into this category?
So does a flex to EMT coupling fit into this category?
Re: changing raceways
Paul, I agree. I have never understood the wording of 300.15(F); in lieu of a box or conduit body. Does this mean we thought about using one and deciced not to.
But along with Bob's reference to 350.42, 348.52 is the same and would apply here.
Roger
Paul, I agree. I have never understood the wording of 300.15(F); in lieu of a box or conduit body. Does this mean we thought about using one and deciced not to.
But along with Bob's reference to 350.42, 348.52 is the same and would apply here.
Roger
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: changing raceways
300.15 is to much for me to type out but you should take a look yourself, and part F makes makes more sense.
Here is the compleat 300.15(F)
"A fitting identified for the use shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body where the conductors are not spliced or terminated within the fitting. The fitting shall be accessible after installation."
I think that the changeover fitting you show is exactly what they are taking about, if you did not use that fitting you would have had to use a box.
300.15 is to much for me to type out but you should take a look yourself, and part F makes makes more sense.
Here is the compleat 300.15(F)
"A fitting identified for the use shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body where the conductors are not spliced or terminated within the fitting. The fitting shall be accessible after installation."
I think that the changeover fitting you show is exactly what they are taking about, if you did not use that fitting you would have had to use a box.
stamcon
Senior Member
- Location
- South San Francisco CA
Re: changing raceways
I think that 300-15(f) deals with the "pull point"
that is mentioned in 300-15. 300-15 talks about boxes, conduit bodies and fittings used at splice, termination and pull points. I think the "fitting" that is referred to in 300-15(f) would be a pulling elbow. Transition fittings are not discussed in this section of the code.
I think that 300-15(f) deals with the "pull point"
that is mentioned in 300-15. 300-15 talks about boxes, conduit bodies and fittings used at splice, termination and pull points. I think the "fitting" that is referred to in 300-15(f) would be a pulling elbow. Transition fittings are not discussed in this section of the code.
curt swartz
Electrical Contractor - San Jose, CA
- Location
- San Jose, CA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Re: changing raceways
I would have to agree with stamcon on this. I don't think 300.15 would apply to transition fittings from one raceway type to another unless the fitting was a type that has a removable cover. If it does apply then all of the RNC-RMC transitions underground and in slabs would be in violation right?
I would have to agree with stamcon on this. I don't think 300.15 would apply to transition fittings from one raceway type to another unless the fitting was a type that has a removable cover. If it does apply then all of the RNC-RMC transitions underground and in slabs would be in violation right?
Re: changing raceways
OK, so Bob you are saying that changing over from RMC to EMT, or PVC in slab changing over to EMT, would need an access hole at every location. If approved fittings are used it would be the same thing.
Roger
[ March 01, 2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
OK, so Bob you are saying that changing over from RMC to EMT, or PVC in slab changing over to EMT, would need an access hole at every location. If approved fittings are used it would be the same thing.
Roger
[ March 01, 2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
Re: changing raceways
Interesting, flex to EMT coupling.....If any of you get the EC&M magazine take a look at the Feb. 203 issue p.60, Code violations, "What's Wrong Here" by Joe Tedesco. Looks as if someone tried to use one of these couplings on liguidtight.
Interesting, flex to EMT coupling.....If any of you get the EC&M magazine take a look at the Feb. 203 issue p.60, Code violations, "What's Wrong Here" by Joe Tedesco. Looks as if someone tried to use one of these couplings on liguidtight.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: changing raceways
Good point about RNC to RMC, I do this a lot and have never left an access hole in the concrete floor.
I do not understand why a changeover would have to be accessible, I just know that was what I have been taught.(maybe I was taught wrong)
As far as assuming that they mean a pulling elbow I think that is a big stretch, all they say is "Fitting"
Article 100 defines a Fitting
Fitting"An accessory such as a locknut, bushing, or other part of a wiring system that is intended primarily to perform a mechanical rather than an electrical function"
templdl,
I did see the photo you speak of.
Good point about RNC to RMC, I do this a lot and have never left an access hole in the concrete floor.
I do not understand why a changeover would have to be accessible, I just know that was what I have been taught.(maybe I was taught wrong)
As far as assuming that they mean a pulling elbow I think that is a big stretch, all they say is "Fitting"
Article 100 defines a Fitting
Fitting"An accessory such as a locknut, bushing, or other part of a wiring system that is intended primarily to perform a mechanical rather than an electrical function"
templdl,
I did see the photo you speak of.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: changing raceways
After reading 300.15 over it would seem that if the change over is not a splice point, outlet point, switch point, junction point, termination point, or pull point it does not need to be accessible.
But if the EMT already had say 270 degrees of bends and you where to change over to a flex with 180 degrees of bends then I would believe that the changeover would need to be accessible as it would now be a pull point
Am I right in my thinking or am I way off.
After reading 300.15 over it would seem that if the change over is not a splice point, outlet point, switch point, junction point, termination point, or pull point it does not need to be accessible.
But if the EMT already had say 270 degrees of bends and you where to change over to a flex with 180 degrees of bends then I would believe that the changeover would need to be accessible as it would now be a pull point
Am I right in my thinking or am I way off.
chris white
Member
- Location
- Pennsylvania
Re: changing raceways
Bob, I agree with what you're saying about the added degrees of bend, that would be a violation if you installed a piece of flex and ended up with more than 360 total in a run with no access points. But I still think that using an straight (non-angle) fitting is OK in a non-accessible place(wall, etc.) Theoretically, you wouldn't need future access if it was installed correctly, you didn't exceed the max bends, and you could repull the conductors if necessary.
Bob, I agree with what you're saying about the added degrees of bend, that would be a violation if you installed a piece of flex and ended up with more than 360 total in a run with no access points. But I still think that using an straight (non-angle) fitting is OK in a non-accessible place(wall, etc.) Theoretically, you wouldn't need future access if it was installed correctly, you didn't exceed the max bends, and you could repull the conductors if necessary.
russ
Senior Member
- Location
- Burbank IL
Re: changing raceways
300.18, It should not be pulled until the run is complete. If its buried, chances are, it has to be pulled after it is connected to the box. Replacement of the wire should not be a concern if it is installed acording to 300.18.
Russ
[ March 02, 2003, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: russ ]
300.18, It should not be pulled until the run is complete. If its buried, chances are, it has to be pulled after it is connected to the box. Replacement of the wire should not be a concern if it is installed acording to 300.18.
Russ
[ March 02, 2003, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: russ ]
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: changing raceways
I understand what you are saying about 300.18(A) Russ, but don't we violate that when we use 90 degree fittings on FMC, LFMC, LFNC etc.? I am sure that I am not the only one that puts the wire in before installing the 90 fitting.
310.15(F) seems to say I can use a listed fitting in lieu of a box or conduit body for pull points. So how would I do this with out it being incomplete?
So I am still unclear on this
I understand what you are saying about 300.18(A) Russ, but don't we violate that when we use 90 degree fittings on FMC, LFMC, LFNC etc.? I am sure that I am not the only one that puts the wire in before installing the 90 fitting.
310.15(F) seems to say I can use a listed fitting in lieu of a box or conduit body for pull points. So how would I do this with out it being incomplete?
So I am still unclear on this
russ
Senior Member
- Location
- Burbank IL
Re: changing raceways
Bob:
I think 300.18(A) adresses the instalation of 90degree connectors. Atleast that's what I believe the intention of(Where required to facilitate the installation of utilization equipment, the raceway shall be permitted to be initially installed without a terminating connection at the equipment.)
Russ
[ March 02, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: russ ]
Bob:
I think 300.18(A) adresses the instalation of 90degree connectors. Atleast that's what I believe the intention of(Where required to facilitate the installation of utilization equipment, the raceway shall be permitted to be initially installed without a terminating connection at the equipment.)
Russ
[ March 02, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: russ ]
harold endean
Member
- Location
- New Jersey
Re: changing raceways
Maybe the intent of this section of the code is for any type of fitting that has a set screw on it. For example a romex to emt connector. You might need acces to this type of a connector in order to tighten it. Or loosen it up if you want to change the wire. When you go from RMC to EMT or IMC etc, the fitting is threaded. You can always pull new wires through the same pipe at any time.
Maybe the intent of this section of the code is for any type of fitting that has a set screw on it. For example a romex to emt connector. You might need acces to this type of a connector in order to tighten it. Or loosen it up if you want to change the wire. When you go from RMC to EMT or IMC etc, the fitting is threaded. You can always pull new wires through the same pipe at any time.
flightline
Senior Member
Re: changing raceways
I hate to be comming to this topic so late in the game, but this evening a colleuge and I were discussing a related topic and I referred to this post.
I hate to be comming to this topic so late in the game, but this evening a colleuge and I were discussing a related topic and I referred to this post.
Neither he nor I could locate 348.52 in either the 1999 or 2002 NEC. I was curious which code section that Roger was actually referring to when he cited the section, perhaps incorrectly.
Re: changing raceways
flightline, sorry, it was simply a typo. Look at 348.42. It's actualy just like other articles 320.40 and 330.40, 360.20 and 362.20, 340.24 and342.24 etc... they coincide with similar articles. 42 should have been your key.
Roger
[ March 07, 2003, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
flightline, sorry, it was simply a typo. Look at 348.42. It's actualy just like other articles 320.40 and 330.40, 360.20 and 362.20, 340.24 and342.24 etc... they coincide with similar articles. 42 should have been your key.
Roger
[ March 07, 2003, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
Re: changing raceways
I appreciate the opions on the subject. The situation I mention before is when you stub a e.m.t up a wall for the rough wall and later the only way to enter a box is to flex it in. In most situations, this occurs in resturants, because of all the crap they expect you to get in the stud space. We use a flex to e.m.t. coupling (with screws) couping.
I appreciate the opions on the subject. The situation I mention before is when you stub a e.m.t up a wall for the rough wall and later the only way to enter a box is to flex it in. In most situations, this occurs in resturants, because of all the crap they expect you to get in the stud space. We use a flex to e.m.t. coupling (with screws) couping.
- Status